4.041
This mathematical multiplicity naturally cannot in its turn be represented. One cannot get outside it in the representation.
4.0411
If we tried, for example, to express what is expressed by "" by putting an index before , like: "", it would not do, we should not know what was generalized. If we tried to show it by an index , like: "" it would not do---we should not know the scope of the generalization.
If we were to try it by introducing a mark in the argument places, like "", it would not do---we could not determine the identity of the variables, etc.
All these ways of symbolizing are inadequate because they have not the necessary mathematical multiplicity.
4.0412
For the same reason the idealist explanation of the seeing of spatial relations through “spatial spectacles” does not do, because it cannot explain the multiplicity of these relations.
Link to original
The state of affairs cannot be apprehended beyond the depiction itself, which itself is only an approximation of what it depicts. Here, though, I find it odd that he uses the term “mathematical multiplicity” to describe both the depiction and what is depicted, as if mathematics has any bearing outside our modality of depiction.
